Monday, May 31, 2010

Bravo to the judge in this case. He made the right call. The girls' actions, both during the supposed "rape" and the trial, are very disturbing. Read on about how depositions before trial -- which could reveal the accuser as a liar -- has been abolished in New Zealand. A deposition of these girls would have avoided this farce and spared an innocent man much grief.

A judge has thrown out sex charges against a Christchurch taxi driver, saying it would be "a farce" to continue.

In the Christchurch District Court yesterday, Mohammad Nadir Darwesh was discharged after Judge David Saunders ruled it would be unsafe for any properly instructed jury to find him guilty.

Darwesh had faced two charges each of detaining for sex and indecently assaulting two teenage girls.

It had emerged in court that the two complainants, both now aged 19, had attempted to extort money from the taxi driver just minutes after the alleged assaults in 2007.

Their conduct in the witness box – one girl attempted to storm out before questioning had finished and the other was unable to recall most details – was taken into account by the judge.The Crown case was that the girls had sent text messages to Darwesh and asked for a free taxi ride.

They said he took them to the Pioneer Pool car park and asked them for sex, while touching their breasts and legs and not allowing them to leave the car by locking the doors.

Darwesh contended the girls offered him sex for money, and that he declined.

Defence counsel Paul Norcross applied for the discharge under Section 347 of the Crimes Act after the prosecution finished its case about 12.30pm.

The judge agreed, saying only a jury returning a "perverse" verdict could convict Darwesh on the evidence given.

"It would be, frankly, a farce to continue at this stage."

To the jury, he said: "I see from the nods of some of you that you agree."

The judge said one of the girls had testified she could no longer remember being assaulted. The other was shown to be an unreliable witness, with a criminal record for dishonesty offending that had continued after the alleged incident.

The girls admitted sending Darwesh text messages demanding money or they would tell police he had raped them.

The judge said the alleged indecent assaults were nowhere near rape. Evidence from phone records showed one of the girls had sent five text messages in the time they were in the car with Darwesh, but they had not asked anyone for help.

Applying for the discharge, Norcross said at no time had either girl attempted to unlock the door and walk out, and they were happy to get a ride back to Barrington Mall afterwards.

Darwesh had no previous convictions and had been a police officer in Afghanistan before immigrating in 2004.

The judge told the jury that with the abolition of deposition hearings, the trial was the first chance to see the "true colours" of complainants.

The vice-president of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Law Society, Alistair Davis, said a committal hearing would not have helped as complainants in sex trials did not testify at depositions.

There was a "general feeling" in the profession that getting rid of depositions was wrong though, as many cases could be resolved at earlier stages.

Bravo to the judge in this case. He made the right call. The girls' actions, both during the supposed "rape" and the trial, are very disturbing. Read on about how depositions before trial -- which could reveal the accuser as a liar -- has been abolished in New Zealand. A deposition of these girls would have avoided this farce and spared an innocent man much grief.

A judge has thrown out sex charges against a Christchurch taxi driver, saying it would be "a farce" to continue.

In the Christchurch District Court yesterday, Mohammad Nadir Darwesh was discharged after Judge David Saunders ruled it would be unsafe for any properly instructed jury to find him guilty.

Darwesh had faced two charges each of detaining for sex and indecently assaulting two teenage girls.

It had emerged in court that the two complainants, both now aged 19, had attempted to extort money from the taxi driver just minutes after the alleged assaults in 2007.

Their conduct in the witness box – one girl attempted to storm out before questioning had finished and the other was unable to recall most details – was taken into account by the judge.The Crown case was that the girls had sent text messages to Darwesh and asked for a free taxi ride.

They said he took them to the Pioneer Pool car park and asked them for sex, while touching their breasts and legs and not allowing them to leave the car by locking the doors.

Darwesh contended the girls offered him sex for money, and that he declined.

Defence counsel Paul Norcross applied for the discharge under Section 347 of the Crimes Act after the prosecution finished its case about 12.30pm.

The judge agreed, saying only a jury returning a "perverse" verdict could convict Darwesh on the evidence given.

"It would be, frankly, a farce to continue at this stage."

To the jury, he said: "I see from the nods of some of you that you agree."

The judge said one of the girls had testified she could no longer remember being assaulted. The other was shown to be an unreliable witness, with a criminal record for dishonesty offending that had continued after the alleged incident.

The girls admitted sending Darwesh text messages demanding money or they would tell police he had raped them.

The judge said the alleged indecent assaults were nowhere near rape. Evidence from phone records showed one of the girls had sent five text messages in the time they were in the car with Darwesh, but they had not asked anyone for help.

Applying for the discharge, Norcross said at no time had either girl attempted to unlock the door and walk out, and they were happy to get a ride back to Barrington Mall afterwards.

Darwesh had no previous convictions and had been a police officer in Afghanistan before immigrating in 2004.

The judge told the jury that with the abolition of deposition hearings, the trial was the first chance to see the "true colours" of complainants.

The vice-president of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Law Society, Alistair Davis, said a committal hearing would not have helped as complainants in sex trials did not testify at depositions.

There was a "general feeling" in the profession that getting rid of depositions was wrong though, as many cases could be resolved at earlier stages.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Would you like to see what sort of "rape culture" we find ourselves stranded in? This is a chilling example of how an alleged rape that supposedly occurred in Lebanon, Ohio was reported earlier this week in American mainstream news outlets as a fact. While some news outlets got it right, too many acted as nothing more than stenographers for police, as opposed to journalists who bother to do their own investigations. Moreover, while many reporters couched their reports in terms of "police said" that an abduction and sexual assault occurred, it appears that police didn't actually say that. It appears that police actually said that a woman was found bound and gagged and claimed she was abducted and sexually assaulted.

This sort of reporting is typical of how rape claims are reported in this country, and this particular case illustrates the immense power of a false rape accuser to use the news media to advance and give legitimacy to her prevarications. Women are too readily believed by the mainstream news outlets. Some of them, looking both for sensational stories and to appear to be politically correct, almost seem to be rooting for the claim to be a fact, as awful as that seems, just because a woman said it happened.

Lebanon Police are searching for an abductor who snatched a college student from her front yard. Police said the victim was taking out the trash Monday morning in the 600 block of Franklin Road when two men approached her. The victim said they blindfolded and gagged her, tied her up, forced her into a car, and then drove to a wooded area where they assaulted her. There are no descriptions of either the suspects or their vehicle.

[Note the use of conclusory terminology that presented the "crime" as a fact. The "abductor," not the "alleged" abductor, "snatched" a college student, not "allegedly" snatched a college student. The report hides behind "police said" this or that. "The victim" -- not the "alleged" victim or the "accuser" -- was approached by two men -- not "allegedly" approached" by two men, who, of course, did terrible things to "the victim."]

Lebanon police are investigating the abduction of a 21-year-old woman who was later found bound and gagged. . . . . Authorities say the woman was abducted early Monday morning while taking the trash out at her home on Franklin Rd. when she was approached by two men and forced into their car where she was blind-folded, gagged and bound. Authorities say the men drove the woman to an undisclosed area where they held her there for approximately 15 hours and sexually assaulted her. At some point during the abduction, police say the men left her alone and she managed to escape back to her family's home where they found her still tied up and laying in the front yard.

[More of the same conclusory terminology that assumes a rape occurred. Not once does the report say where the police obtained information about the alleged event -- was it based solely on the "victim's" word?]

The Lebanon Police Department is investigating an abduction of a 21-year-old woman.The investigation began on Monday with a report around 2:40 p.m. by family members that the victim was missing. Officers said at approximately 10 p.m., officers and medics were dispatched to a yard on Franklin Road near Norman Lane where the victim was found bound and gagged. According to police, the woman took the trash out early Monday morning from her home and was approached by two men. The men then forced her into a car, where they blindfolded her, gagged her and bound her wrists. Sgt. Jeff Mitchell said, "Between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. Monday morning, she was taken from in front of her residence." Police said the men drove the woman to an undisclosed wooded area, where they held her for 15 hours and sexually assaulted her at times. Investigators said the men eventually left the woman alone, allowing her to escape and return to her home. Officers said the woman found by her family members lying in the front yard bound and gagged. She was taken to the Atrium Medical Center in Middletown. The name of the victim has not been released. Investigators said they are talking to witnesses and the victim to get more information about what happened.

[The same. The accuser is a "victim" and the reporter is content to write down what "police said." Joseph Pulitzer would be proud.]

By Mike Ivcic LEBANON, Ohio - Investigators said Thursday that a local 21-year-old pulled a hoax on local law officials. Police in Lebanon, though, aren't laughing.

Police said that Kristen Lamb of Lebanon admitted to making up the story of her abduction and sexual assault on Thursday.

Monday, police received a report around 2:40 p.m. by family members that Lamb was missing. Then, at approximately 10 p.m. Monday night, officers and medics were dispatched to a yard on Franklin Road near Norman Lane where Lamb was found bound and gagged by her family.

The University of Cincinnati nursing student originally told police that she was abducted by two men between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. while taking out the trash in front of her residence.

She then claimed to police that the men drove her to an unknown wooded area where they held her for 15 hours and raped her. Lamb said that the men eventually left her alone for a time, allowing her to escape and return home.

However, in an interview with investigators on Thursday, Lamb admitted that she fabricated the entire story. She said that she went to a wooded area and sat there for more than 15 hours after using zip ties from her father's tool box to bind her own wrists and using a pillow case from her room to cover her head.

Investigators said that Lamb took them to the wooded area north of her home, where they found the pillow case and one zip tie.

Lamb told police that she had no assistance or contact from anyone while she was gone.

Police say they attribute Lamb's actions to her family's attention to her brother's recent wedding.

Investigators are now talking with prosecutors about possible criminal charges against Lamb.

[FRS Note to reporter Mike Ivcic: We don't know if you wrote the earlier story about the alleged abduction and sexual assault that appeared on your news outlet's website, but did the authorities really say that the woman had been abducted, as your news outlet reported in the earlier story? Or did the authorities tell your news outlet merely that the woman "claimed" she had been abducted, as you reported in the updated story? Do you see the difference? When a news outlet tells its readers that "police said" something happened, that is a hell of a lot different than reporting that police said that a lone accuser "claimed" something happened. The former will be automatically believed as fact; the latter will be taken with a grain of salt. But I suspect that reporters know that. And I suspect that some reporters -- I don't mean Mr. Ivcic -- are content with having their readers believe that a mere claim of sexual assault was an actual sexual assault.]

Would you like to see what sort of "rape culture" we find ourselves stranded in? This is a chilling example of how an alleged rape that supposedly occurred in Lebanon, Ohio was reported earlier this week in American mainstream news outlets as a fact. While some news outlets got it right, too many acted as nothing more than stenographers for police, as opposed to journalists who bother to do their own investigations. Moreover, while many reporters couched their reports in terms of "police said" that an abduction and sexual assault occurred, it appears that police didn't actually say that. It appears that police actually said that a woman was found bound and gagged and claimed she was abducted and sexually assaulted.

This sort of reporting is typical of how rape claims are reported in this country, and this particular case illustrates the immense power of a false rape accuser to use the news media to advance and give legitimacy to her prevarications. Women are too readily believed by the mainstream news outlets. Some of them, looking both for sensational stories and to appear to be politically correct, almost seem to be rooting for the claim to be a fact, as awful as that seems, just because a woman said it happened.

Lebanon Police are searching for an abductor who snatched a college student from her front yard. Police said the victim was taking out the trash Monday morning in the 600 block of Franklin Road when two men approached her. The victim said they blindfolded and gagged her, tied her up, forced her into a car, and then drove to a wooded area where they assaulted her. There are no descriptions of either the suspects or their vehicle.

[Note the use of conclusory terminology that presented the "crime" as a fact. The "abductor," not the "alleged" abductor, "snatched" a college student, not "allegedly" snatched a college student. The report hides behind "police said" this or that. "The victim" -- not the "alleged" victim or the "accuser" -- was approached by two men -- not "allegedly" approached" by two men, who, of course, did terrible things to "the victim."]

Lebanon police are investigating the abduction of a 21-year-old woman who was later found bound and gagged. . . . . Authorities say the woman was abducted early Monday morning while taking the trash out at her home on Franklin Rd. when she was approached by two men and forced into their car where she was blind-folded, gagged and bound. Authorities say the men drove the woman to an undisclosed area where they held her there for approximately 15 hours and sexually assaulted her. At some point during the abduction, police say the men left her alone and she managed to escape back to her family's home where they found her still tied up and laying in the front yard.

[More of the same conclusory terminology that assumes a rape occurred. Not once does the report say where the police obtained information about the alleged event -- was it based solely on the "victim's" word?]

The Lebanon Police Department is investigating an abduction of a 21-year-old woman.The investigation began on Monday with a report around 2:40 p.m. by family members that the victim was missing. Officers said at approximately 10 p.m., officers and medics were dispatched to a yard on Franklin Road near Norman Lane where the victim was found bound and gagged. According to police, the woman took the trash out early Monday morning from her home and was approached by two men. The men then forced her into a car, where they blindfolded her, gagged her and bound her wrists. Sgt. Jeff Mitchell said, "Between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. Monday morning, she was taken from in front of her residence." Police said the men drove the woman to an undisclosed wooded area, where they held her for 15 hours and sexually assaulted her at times. Investigators said the men eventually left the woman alone, allowing her to escape and return to her home. Officers said the woman found by her family members lying in the front yard bound and gagged. She was taken to the Atrium Medical Center in Middletown. The name of the victim has not been released. Investigators said they are talking to witnesses and the victim to get more information about what happened.

[The same. The accuser is a "victim" and the reporter is content to write down what "police said." Joseph Pulitzer would be proud.]

By Mike Ivcic
LEBANON, Ohio - Investigators said Thursday that a local 21-year-old pulled a hoax on local law officials. Police in Lebanon, though, aren't laughing.

Police said that Kristen Lamb of Lebanon admitted to making up the story of her abduction and sexual assault on Thursday.

Monday, police received a report around 2:40 p.m. by family members that Lamb was missing. Then, at approximately 10 p.m. Monday night, officers and medics were dispatched to a yard on Franklin Road near Norman Lane where Lamb was found bound and gagged by her family.

The University of Cincinnati nursing student originally told police that she was abducted by two men between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. while taking out the trash in front of her residence.

She then claimed to police that the men drove her to an unknown wooded area where they held her for 15 hours and raped her. Lamb said that the men eventually left her alone for a time, allowing her to escape and return home.

However, in an interview with investigators on Thursday, Lamb admitted that she fabricated the entire story. She said that she went to a wooded area and sat there for more than 15 hours after using zip ties from her father's tool box to bind her own wrists and using a pillow case from her room to cover her head.

Investigators said that Lamb took them to the wooded area north of her home, where they found the pillow case and one zip tie.

Lamb told police that she had no assistance or contact from anyone while she was gone.

Police say they attribute Lamb's actions to her family's attention to her brother's recent wedding.

Investigators are now talking with prosecutors about possible criminal charges against Lamb.

[FRS Note to reporter Mike Ivcic: We don't know if you wrote the earlier story about the alleged abduction and sexual assault that appeared on your news outlet's website, but did the authorities really say that the woman had been abducted, as your news outlet reported in the earlier story? Or did the authorities tell your news outlet merely that the woman "claimed" she had been abducted, as you reported in the updated story? Do you see the difference? When a news outlet tells its readers that "police said" something happened, that is a hell of a lot different than reporting that police said that a lone accuser "claimed" something happened. The former will be automatically believed as fact; the latter will be taken with a grain of salt. But I suspect that reporters know that. And I suspect that some reporters -- I don't mean Mr. Ivcic -- are content with having their readers believe that a mere claim of sexual assault was an actual sexual assault.]

Friday, May 28, 2010

Perhaps by now, regular readers of The False Rape Society may be wondering about my adamant opposition to feminism. In the interest of disclosure, here's a bit of background.

I grew up surrounded by a sea of good, honorable, gentlemanly men (and very good women, too, despite their not being feminists) -- men of principle, high-minded men who exercised self-control and who had huge hearts full of love, men who continuously did good things for others, and not for praise or honor, because most of it was unknown and unacknowledged except to and by a few others.

These were ordinary men untouched by celebrity, unacknowledged by the world -- men who lived quiet lives in small towns in the South, who worked at a variety of occupations and earned various incomes. Among the hundreds upon hundreds of wonderful, loving men in the churches where my daddy preached when I was growing up, there were a few bad apples. I can count them on my fingers.

The eight or ten bad apples I knew personally are likely the only men feminism would acknowledge. It would try to smear all men with the deeds of those few. It's the same thing with patriarchy. All they have eyes for is the bad it "caused." But when it comes to good things, feminism basically ignores the good men have done, including things that greatly benefited women, things they would have gotten no other way.

That's why I have so little respect for feminism. I'm much more willing to acknowledge the few good things it has produced for women -- far more than feminists are willing to credit men's accomplishments. But just because some good things resulted from feminist efforts doesn't mean I have to swallow every chunk of bitter falsehood they're trying to cram down my throat.

Like claims of rape culture.

While I don't engage in male hero worship, I acknowledge and respect the differences between men and women and I don't denigrate men for being the way God made them. I do love, respect and honor men who are loving, respectable and honorable, and even some who aren't, when caught up in circumstances beyond their control. And I don't try to smear all men, or maleness itself, with the bad deeds of some, as feminism does.

Yes, patriarchy has its negatives; it's an institution of flawed humans and cannot help being flawed--but it is not the total evil feminism would have us believe. I will always be grateful to those wonderful, honorable men of my youth, who showed me the positive reality of maleness and manhood, and thus inoculated me against the virulence of radical feminism.

Perhaps by now, regular readers of The False Rape Society may be wondering about my adamant opposition to feminism. In the interest of disclosure, here's a bit of background.

I grew up surrounded by a sea of good, honorable, gentlemanly men (and very good women, too, despite their not being feminists) -- men of principle, high-minded men who exercised self-control and who had huge hearts full of love, men who continuously did good things for others, and not for praise or honor, because most of it was unknown and unacknowledged except to and by a few others.

These were ordinary men untouched by celebrity, unacknowledged by the world -- men who lived quiet lives in small towns in the South, who worked at a variety of occupations and earned various incomes. Among the hundreds upon hundreds of wonderful, loving men in the churches where my daddy preached when I was growing up, there were a few bad apples. I can count them on my fingers.

The eight or ten bad apples I knew personally are likely the only men feminism would acknowledge. It would try to smear all men with the deeds of those few. It's the same thing with patriarchy. All they have eyes for is the bad it "caused." But when it comes to good things, feminism basically ignores the good men have done, including things that greatly benefited women, things they would have gotten no other way.

That's why I have so little respect for feminism. I'm much more willing to acknowledge the few good things it has produced for women -- far more than feminists are willing to credit men's accomplishments. But just because some good things resulted from feminist efforts doesn't mean I have to swallow every chunk of bitter falsehood they're trying to cram down my throat.

Like claims of rape culture.

While I don't engage in male hero worship, I acknowledge and respect the differences between men and women and I don't denigrate men for being the way God made them. I do love, respect and honor men who are loving, respectable and honorable, and even some who aren't, when caught up in circumstances beyond their control. And I don't try to smear all men, or maleness itself, with the bad deeds of some, as feminism does.

Yes, patriarchy has its negatives; it's an institution of flawed humans and cannot help being flawed--but it is not the total evil feminism would have us believe. I will always be grateful to those wonderful, honorable men of my youth, who showed me the positive reality of maleness and manhood, and thus inoculated me against the virulence of radical feminism.

This post deals with one of the most important issues the false rape community has encountered in recent years, the plan to grant anonymity to presumptively innocent men accused of rape.

Feminists who purport to advocate for rape victims were presented with a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the world that its movement had matured beyond its radical, gender-divisive "all men are rapists" and "men who are falsely accused can learn from the experience" epoch by embracing the new UK government's call for anonymity for the presumptively innocent who've been accused of rape. They were given the opportunity to join hands with the false rape community to signal that the interests of victims of rape and victims of false rape claims are not in conflict but are, in actuality, allied. This alliance is attested to by the rape victims who support our work at this site.

But instead, feminists who purport to advocate for rape victims chose to launch a broadside attack on the plan, incredibly branding it an "insult" to actual rape victims. This response was punitive and grounded in emotion, and the rationale underlying it is baseless and in stark opposition to all the objectively verifiable evidence.

Leading the charge as the "go to" woman for juicy feminist quotes in the mainstream media is a specimen that goes by the name Ruth Hall, a spokeswoman for Women Against Rape (as opposed to -- what? -- "Men For Rape"?). WAR is a typical rape advocacy group that uses outrageous statistics to shock. It's website includes the following gems: "98% of domestic violence is not reported to the police." And: "A third of women in Britain have suffered domestic violence." And: "One in three teenage girls has suffered sexual abuse from a boyfriend, one in six has been pressured into sex." And: "One in four teenage girls has experienced violence in a relationship . . . ."

I. It will prevent women from "coming forward":"Ruth Hall, a spokeswoman for Women against Rape, said the proposal would stop women coming forward to report rapes by propagating the notion that many allegations are false. They should pay attention to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false. It will just support the idea that women are making false allegations."

This argument is posited with no authority beyond Ms. Hall's serene ipse dixit. The gaps, or more accurately, the chasms, in this argument are breathtaking.

First, the rationale supporting anonymity does not depend on an assumption that most rape claims are false (although that is certainly possible). The rationale supporting anonymity is that some women and girls lie about rape -- the exact prevalence of false rape claims is neither known nor knowable -- but that the harm caused to those innocent men who are falsely accused, whatever the number, is severe. Rape lies have caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves (from The Scottsboro Boys to modern day); to be incarcerated often longer than their false accusers are legally permitted to be imprisoned when their lies are finally brought to light; to lose their good names, their jobs, their businesses, their life's savings, their wives, and their girlfriends; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain good employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and finding the horrid accusation. It is sufficiently horrible for a man to be accused of a false rape claim without having his good name destroyed with the accusation.

Second, there is no basis whatsoever to believe that women won't come forward if the men they accuse are anonymous. None. In fact, the opposite is more likely and would probably be preferable to actual rape victims. When a woman accuses a male classmate of rape and his name is splashed all over the school newspaper, it often isn't very difficult to figure out who the accuser is. The same is true outside college. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims looking for justice would prefer not to have their identities inferred when an intimate acquaintance of theirs is accused of rape.

Third, the overriding evidence suggests that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities. Nobody knows for certain what the percentage of false claims is. A leading feminist legal scholar recently acknowledged: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). (It is well to note that feminist scholars are often out in front of sexual assault assault counselors, so Ms. Hall, take note.) Moreover, the UK's Stern Review recently refused to tie itself to any percentage: "The research that is available on false allegations gives a wide range of figures for how many there are . . . ." (Stern Review at 13.)

Any rape advocate who asserts that only a tiny percentage of rape claims are false is either grossly misinformed or a liar, because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty. Here is why: for every rape claim reported, as we've illustrated on this site time and time again, only a relatively small percentage can be definitively called "rape." This is beyond dispute. Fifteen percent end in conviction and of those we know that some innocent men and boys are convicted. We also know that some claims reported (the numbers vary depending on the study) are outright false. But in between the claims we are reasonably certain were actual rapes, and the ones we are reasonably certain were false claims, is a vast gray area consisting of a group of claims that cannot properly be classified as "rapes" -- because we just don't know. That's the nature of a rape claim. The claims in this vast gray middle area often suffer from evidentiary infirmities. For example, for some such claims, while the claimant herself might think a rape occurred, her outward manifestations of assent did not match her subjective disinclination to engage in sex, so it wasn't rape. Importantly, if we treated every "reported" rape as an actual rape, as some sexual assault counselors suggest, we would call each of those claims, and every false claim reported on this site, actual "rapes" -- but that wouldn't be accurate, or just.

Regardless of what the actual number might be, every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities (without the use of polygraphs, I might add) and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false (without the use of polygraphs). In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)

II. Being falsely accused of rape is no different than being falsely accused of any other crime: "Hall said that, while false allegations were rare, they tended to attract a great deal of publicity. "Being falsely accused of rape is a terrible ordeal, but the same could be said of being falsely accused of murder or fraud," she said."

Anyone who suggests that the false claims of other crimes are just as harmful as false rape claims is either a fool or a liar. Significant numbers of men and boys have been lynched for alleged rapes they never committed. Rape is widely considered the second most serious criminal offense aside from murder, and murder is far more difficult to lie about than rape. I challenge anyone to cite examples of false claims involving crimes other than rape that have harmed innocent people in significant numbers. The fact is, false accusations of other serious crimes are exceedingly rare, they are usually easily and immediately disproved, and they hardly ever carry the awful stigma of a false rape claim. That is a fact, irrefutable and not open to question. In contrast, when it comes to rape claims, one need not look back to the Scottsboro boys or even Duke lacrosse: I can cite for you hundreds of recent false rape cases that have hurt innocent men and boys, sometimes in the most terrible, even fatal, ways. And most false rape claims are never reported by the news media.

III. Anonymity will hinder police investigations. Hall said: "We don't want to see men accused of rape getting special protection that people don't get for other crimes. Anonymity for men has already been tried, but then police said it hindered their investigations, because they could not put out calls for women who had been raped by the same man."

Would anonymity for men accused of rape hinder police investigations any worse than anonymity for rape accusers hinders police (not to mention innocent men) from learning that a rape accuser has made false rape allegations in the past? The question scarcely survives its statement. Yet, we grant anonymity for women who accuse men of rape because it is thought to serve other useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve important purposes, even if police might prefer to have more information. The interests of police should not trump the interests of innocent men from having their good names destroyed by rape lies. Ms. Hall would not tolerate a suggestion that the interests of police should trump women's interests, and her disinterest in protecting the innocent members of the opposite sex suggests an inclination to punish an entire gender, the good with the bad, in the name of waging the war on rape. Innocent men are just collateral damage whose pain is to be tolerated to serve the "more important" interest of fighting rape. But why should the victimization of our daughters be more worthy of our protection than the victimization of our sons?

Who is Ruth Hall?

It is well for our readers to know about the person making the statements in question. Ms. Hall has been at it for a long time. Back in the 70s, the high water mark for lunatic feminism, her "militant group" was reported to have "disrupted court sessions and broken into the Defense ministry to 'serve summons' on Minister Fred Mulley" in its advocacy against rape.

Ms. Hall doesn't seem to think all that much of the male gender in general. Take the case where a woman testified that she was too drunk to remember if she consented to sex. That didn't stop Ruth Hall from saying the case should have been sent to the jury anyway: "Some, like Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, argue that the judge at Swansea Crown Court should have allowed the jury to reach a verdict. 'We know that in certain circumstances, where drink is involved, a man will often take advantage of a woman,' she said."

You see, a man "often" takes advantage of a woman who has been drinking, so it is perfectly fair to send this case involving a particular man to the jury for a possible conviction, even though his accuser could not say if she consented. Never mind little things such as, oh, the absence of evidence. The man should be tried and convicted based not on the evidence in his case but on the supposed sins of his gender.

And, oh, those cunning men, they can be damn clever about how they plot out their rapes, Ms. Hall once revealed: "Ms Hall agreed some rapists were trying new tactics - for instance briefly chatting a woman up so they could later claim it was consensual. 'Certainly some rapists think they stand a better chance with so-called date rape, because it is often regarded as less serious. So that does give them the go-ahead to commit more crime."

Ms. Hall doesn't seem to think much of the police, either: "Ruth Hall from support group Women Against Rape said that, while some officers really did want to get convictions, . . . rape cases were not a priority for police as a whole. 'The police are often very careless when handling evidence, they lose evidence, or they don't recognise evidence when it's put in front of their faces or they misinterpret facts,' she said." And this: "Ruth Hall, from Women Against Rape, said: 'Until people are held to account and sacked for not doing their job properly cases like this will continue to happen. The sexism and hostility to women who suffer rape and sexual assaults runs so deep officers will continue to sabotage rape cases, because this is what they are doing.'" And this: "Evidence backs up what women say but is often left uncollected by police."

And she doesn't think much of prosecutors, either: "Ruth Hall, from the support group Women Against Rape, welcomed the new moves but said sexism was the real barrier to more prosecutions. 'There are people in positions in the criminal justice system who are supposed to be protecting us, there are people in power stopping cases getting through and blocking changes being made,' she said. 'The sexism runs very deep - it won't be changed until a few have to actually be sacked or disciplined so the others know it now is being taken seriously.'"

Ruth Hall is a rape victim's advocate. Since newspapers thrive on conflict, she is the proper person for reporters to seek out for a good, juicy quote to denigrate the call for anonymity for men. But her interest and bias disqualifies her from setting policy on this crucial issue. Based on the above, she does not seem at all interested in helping men falsely accused of rape. That view is both heinous and sadly common among feminists, who have not matured beyond their "all men are rapists" stage.

This post deals with one of the most important issues the false rape community has encountered in recent years, the plan to grant anonymity to presumptively innocent men accused of rape.

Feminists who purport to advocate for rape victims were presented with a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the world that its movement had matured beyond its radical, gender-divisive "all men are rapists" and "men who are falsely accused can learn from the experience" epoch by embracing the new UK government's call for anonymity for the presumptively innocent who've been accused of rape. They were given the opportunity to join hands with the false rape community to signal that the interests of victims of rape and victims of false rape claims are not in conflict but are, in actuality, allied. This alliance is attested to by the rape victims who support our work at this site.

But instead, feminists who purport to advocate for rape victims chose to launch a broadside attack on the plan, incredibly branding it an "insult" to actual rape victims. This response was punitive and grounded in emotion, and the rationale underlying it is baseless and in stark opposition to all the objectively verifiable evidence.

Leading the charge as the "go to" woman for juicy feminist quotes in the mainstream media is a specimen that goes by the name Ruth Hall, a spokeswoman for Women Against Rape (as opposed to -- what? -- "Men For Rape"?). WAR is a typical rape advocacy group that uses outrageous statistics to shock. It's website includes the following gems: "98% of domestic violence is not reported to the police." And: "A third of women in Britain have suffered domestic violence." And: "One in three teenage girls has suffered sexual abuse from a boyfriend, one in six has been pressured into sex." And: "One in four teenage girls has experienced violence in a relationship . . . ."

I. It will prevent women from "coming forward":"Ruth Hall, a spokeswoman for Women against Rape, said the proposal would stop women coming forward to report rapes by propagating the notion that many allegations are false. They should pay attention to the 94% of reported cases that do not end in conviction rather than the few that are false. It will just support the idea that women are making false allegations."

This argument is posited with no authority beyond Ms. Hall's serene ipse dixit. The gaps, or more accurately, the chasms, in this argument are breathtaking.

First, the rationale supporting anonymity does not depend on an assumption that most rape claims are false (although that is certainly possible). The rationale supporting anonymity is that some women and girls lie about rape -- the exact prevalence of false rape claims is neither known nor knowable -- but that the harm caused to those innocent men who are falsely accused, whatever the number, is severe. Rape lies have caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves (from The Scottsboro Boys to modern day); to be incarcerated often longer than their false accusers are legally permitted to be imprisoned when their lies are finally brought to light; to lose their good names, their jobs, their businesses, their life's savings, their wives, and their girlfriends; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain good employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and finding the horrid accusation. It is sufficiently horrible for a man to be accused of a false rape claim without having his good name destroyed with the accusation.

Second, there is no basis whatsoever to believe that women won't come forward if the men they accuse are anonymous. None. In fact, the opposite is more likely and would probably be preferable to actual rape victims. When a woman accuses a male classmate of rape and his name is splashed all over the school newspaper, it often isn't very difficult to figure out who the accuser is. The same is true outside college. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims looking for justice would prefer not to have their identities inferred when an intimate acquaintance of theirs is accused of rape.

Third, the overriding evidence suggests that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities. Nobody knows for certain what the percentage of false claims is. A leading feminist legal scholar recently acknowledged: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). (It is well to note that feminist scholars are often out in front of sexual assault assault counselors, so Ms. Hall, take note.) Moreover, the UK's Stern Review recently refused to tie itself to any percentage: "The research that is available on false allegations gives a wide range of figures for how many there are . . . ." (Stern Review at 13.)

Any rape advocate who asserts that only a tiny percentage of rape claims are false is either grossly misinformed or a liar, because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty. Here is why: for every rape claim reported, as we've illustrated on this site time and time again, only a relatively small percentage can be definitively called "rape." This is beyond dispute. Fifteen percent end in conviction and of those we know that some innocent men and boys are convicted. We also know that some claims reported (the numbers vary depending on the study) are outright false. But in between the claims we are reasonably certain were actual rapes, and the ones we are reasonably certain were false claims, is a vast gray area consisting of a group of claims that cannot properly be classified as "rapes" -- because we just don't know. That's the nature of a rape claim. The claims in this vast gray middle area often suffer from evidentiary infirmities. For example, for some such claims, while the claimant herself might think a rape occurred, her outward manifestations of assent did not match her subjective disinclination to engage in sex, so it wasn't rape. Importantly, if we treated every "reported" rape as an actual rape, as some sexual assault counselors suggest, we would call each of those claims, and every false claim reported on this site, actual "rapes" -- but that wouldn't be accurate, or just.

Regardless of what the actual number might be, every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities (without the use of polygraphs, I might add) and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false (without the use of polygraphs). In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers -- as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.)

II. Being falsely accused of rape is no different than being falsely accused of any other crime: "Hall said that, while false allegations were rare, they tended to attract a great deal of publicity. "Being falsely accused of rape is a terrible ordeal, but the same could be said of being falsely accused of murder or fraud," she said."

Anyone who suggests that the false claims of other crimes are just as harmful as false rape claims is either a fool or a liar. Significant numbers of men and boys have been lynched for alleged rapes they never committed. Rape is widely considered the second most serious criminal offense aside from murder, and murder is far more difficult to lie about than rape. I challenge anyone to cite examples of false claims involving crimes other than rape that have harmed innocent people in significant numbers. The fact is, false accusations of other serious crimes are exceedingly rare, they are usually easily and immediately disproved, and they hardly ever carry the awful stigma of a false rape claim. That is a fact, irrefutable and not open to question. In contrast, when it comes to rape claims, one need not look back to the Scottsboro boys or even Duke lacrosse: I can cite for you hundreds of recent false rape cases that have hurt innocent men and boys, sometimes in the most terrible, even fatal, ways. And most false rape claims are never reported by the news media.

III. Anonymity will hinder police investigations. Hall said: "We don't want to see men accused of rape getting special protection that people don't get for other crimes. Anonymity for men has already been tried, but then police said it hindered their investigations, because they could not put out calls for women who had been raped by the same man."

Would anonymity for men accused of rape hinder police investigations any worse than anonymity for rape accusers hinders police (not to mention innocent men) from learning that a rape accuser has made false rape allegations in the past? The question scarcely survives its statement. Yet, we grant anonymity for women who accuse men of rape because it is thought to serve other useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve important purposes, even if police might prefer to have more information. The interests of police should not trump the interests of innocent men from having their good names destroyed by rape lies. Ms. Hall would not tolerate a suggestion that the interests of police should trump women's interests, and her disinterest in protecting the innocent members of the opposite sex suggests an inclination to punish an entire gender, the good with the bad, in the name of waging the war on rape. Innocent men are just collateral damage whose pain is to be tolerated to serve the "more important" interest of fighting rape. But why should the victimization of our daughters be more worthy of our protection than the victimization of our sons?

Who is Ruth Hall?

It is well for our readers to know about the person making the statements in question. Ms. Hall has been at it for a long time. Back in the 70s, the high water mark for lunatic feminism, her "militant group" was reported to have "disrupted court sessions and broken into the Defense ministry to 'serve summons' on Minister Fred Mulley" in its advocacy against rape.

Ms. Hall doesn't seem to think all that much of the male gender in general. Take the case where a woman testified that she was too drunk to remember if she consented to sex. That didn't stop Ruth Hall from saying the case should have been sent to the jury anyway: "Some, like Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, argue that the judge at Swansea Crown Court should have allowed the jury to reach a verdict. 'We know that in certain circumstances, where drink is involved, a man will often take advantage of a woman,' she said."

You see, a man "often" takes advantage of a woman who has been drinking, so it is perfectly fair to send this case involving a particular man to the jury for a possible conviction, even though his accuser could not say if she consented. Never mind little things such as, oh, the absence of evidence. The man should be tried and convicted based not on the evidence in his case but on the supposed sins of his gender.

And, oh, those cunning men, they can be damn clever about how they plot out their rapes, Ms. Hall once revealed: "Ms Hall agreed some rapists were trying new tactics - for instance briefly chatting a woman up so they could later claim it was consensual. 'Certainly some rapists think they stand a better chance with so-called date rape, because it is often regarded as less serious. So that does give them the go-ahead to commit more crime."

Ms. Hall doesn't seem to think much of the police, either: "Ruth Hall from support group Women Against Rape said that, while some officers really did want to get convictions, . . . rape cases were not a priority for police as a whole. 'The police are often very careless when handling evidence, they lose evidence, or they don't recognise evidence when it's put in front of their faces or they misinterpret facts,' she said." And this: "Ruth Hall, from Women Against Rape, said: 'Until people are held to account and sacked for not doing their job properly cases like this will continue to happen. The sexism and hostility to women who suffer rape and sexual assaults runs so deep officers will continue to sabotage rape cases, because this is what they are doing.'" And this: "Evidence backs up what women say but is often left uncollected by police."

And she doesn't think much of prosecutors, either: "Ruth Hall, from the support group Women Against Rape, welcomed the new moves but said sexism was the real barrier to more prosecutions. 'There are people in positions in the criminal justice system who are supposed to be protecting us, there are people in power stopping cases getting through and blocking changes being made,' she said. 'The sexism runs very deep - it won't be changed until a few have to actually be sacked or disciplined so the others know it now is being taken seriously.'"

Ruth Hall is a rape victim's advocate. Since newspapers thrive on conflict, she is the proper person for reporters to seek out for a good, juicy quote to denigrate the call for anonymity for men. But her interest and bias disqualifies her from setting policy on this crucial issue. Based on the above, she does not seem at all interested in helping men falsely accused of rape. That view is both heinous and sadly common among feminists, who have not matured beyond their "all men are rapists" stage.

A WOMAN has appeared in court accused of making a false rape allegation to the police.

Melissa Handy, aged 38, is charged with intentionally doing an act which tended to pervert the course of justice. Handy, of West Malling Avenue in Ernesettle, faced Plymouth magistrates for an initial two-minute hearing. She did not enter any plea to the allegation of making a false allegation of rape on October 30 last year.

Smartly-dressed Handy only spoke to confirm her personal details.

Magistrates heard that the case was so serious it had to be sent to Crown Court.

Handy was released on unconditional bail to appear at the senior court on August 2.

A WOMAN has appeared in court accused of making a false rape allegation to the police.

Melissa Handy, aged 38, is charged with intentionally doing an act which tended to pervert the course of justice. Handy, of West Malling Avenue in Ernesettle, faced Plymouth magistrates for an initial two-minute hearing. She did not enter any plea to the allegation of making a false allegation of rape on October 30 last year.

Smartly-dressed Handy only spoke to confirm her personal details.

Magistrates heard that the case was so serious it had to be sent to Crown Court.

Handy was released on unconditional bail to appear at the senior court on August 2.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Feminist rape activists have dominated the public discourse on rape for the past thirty years. More and more, rape, as defined by law or in college handbooks, has become a game of "gotcha!" with the intention of branding a male (usually a young man or boy) as a rapist for doing what most people would think is not rape. Common sense is sacrificed for robotic adherence to harsh, bright-line rules.

A boy who is engaging in consensual sex delays withdrawing for five to ten seconds (by the girl's own admission) and he's a rapist, convicted of a felony that will forever brand him as a the most serious criminal aside from murderer.

A college couple engages in sex after drinking: he, and he alone, is a rapist, because the one drink she had interfered with her ability to consent with 100 percent crystal clarity, and only the male is deemed to be responsible for sexual transgressions.

A young couple has had sex dozens of times without words being spoken: he's a rapist if he proceeds in the same manner they've repeatedly done it in the past if she decides to complain about it because she does not give enthusiastic verbal assent. Even though he didn't use force; even though she never said "don't"; and even though she's been perfectly happy with this kind of sex many, many previous times.

Gotcha! He's a rapist! He goes to prison for many years, or is expelled from college after a hearing in a decidedly anti-male kangaroo court. War has been declared on an entire gender, and persons of goodwill stand by and allow it. Why? One reason is because America has a long, painful tradition of overreacting to rape, so this form of overreaction seems par for the course.

The Martinsville Seven: seven lives were the price for one rape

On Friday morning, February 2, 1951, four young black men, none of them old enough to legally buy a drink, were put to death for the gang rape of a white housewife. The following Monday, three more black men were executed for the same rape. Today, the "Martinsville Seven" are largely forgotten, but their case was significant. The men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by all-white, all-male juries. Before the youngest was executed, he said: "God knows I didn't touch that woman, and I'll see ya'll on the other side." It was the biggest mass execution for rape in American history. The case was rife with racial tension as activists protested because only black men received the death penalty in Virgina for rape.

Indeed, between 1930 and the early 1970s, 405 black men were executed in Southern states for rape. While it is impossible to say what percentage of the convictions that led to these executions were based on actual guilt, it is fair to say that it was very difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for black men to get a fair trial for the alleged rape of a white woman in the old South.

While activists in the Martinsville Seven case protested the unfairness of executing only black men for rape, no one thought to protest the inherent and blatant injustice of taking the life of a male of any color for the rape of a female.

Rape historically punished more severely than the crime deserves

Throughout history, rape has often elicited a visceral reaction of outrage exceeding the actual harm inflicted by the crime. Whether by "legal" sentences (executions or excessively lengthy prison terms), or illegal lynchings and other vigilante "justice," men traditionally have often sought to punish rapists in a manner that is, by any rational measure, not proportional to the actual crime. Meting out excessive punishments for rape also means that the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they didn't commit.

Given its pervasive law and order attitudes, America has a long and shameful history of rape hysteria, predating the feminist revolution. President Theodore Roosevelt's December 3, 1906 State of the Union address spent an inordinate amount of time discussing a problem peculiar to black men: lynchings for allegedly committing rape that too often took the lives of innocent men. In that speech, Roosevelt declared without equivocation (and without explanation) that rape is a crime "even worse than murder" that deserves the death penalty.

The death penalty for rape finally outlawed

Until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977), states were permitted to punish the rape of adult women with the death penalty. It is interesting that outlawing the death penalty for the rape of women coincided with the height of the feminist revolution.

After Coker, the death penalty was still permitted for the rape of children. Six states still punished the rape of a child with the death penalty at the time it was ruled unconstitutional less than two years ago in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008). In that case, Justice Kennedy (no relation to the convicted man), writing for the majority, explained that the practice imposing the death penalty for child rape violated "evolving standards of decency," the yardstick the court uses to decide whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. overreacting

Importantly, in Kennedy, the court expressly noted that one of the bases for its holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape was the risk of false claims. The Court explained: "The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a 'special risk of wrongful execution' in some child rape cases. . . . . This undermines, at least to some degree, the meaningful contribution of the death penalty to legitimate goals of punishment. Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement."

A significant footnote to the Kennedy case, which underscores the Court's concern about false claims, is that the victim in that particular case made a false accusation before the real rapist was arrested. Specifically, after the victim was raped by her stepfather, the victim and her stepfather both claimed that the girl was raped by two neighborhood boys. "She told the psychologist that she had been playing in the garage when a boy came over and asked her about Girl Scout cookies she was selling; and that the boy 'pulled [her by the legs to] the backyard,'. . . where he placed his hand over her mouth, 'pulled down [her] shorts,' . . . ." This, of course, turned out to be a false accusation. What might have happened if that boy had been put to death for a rape he didn't commit?

Feminism capitalizes on America's overreaction to rape

During the oral argument of the Kennedy case, Justice Ginsburg noted that imposing the death penalty in rape cases stems from a tradition "when a woman was regarded as as good as dead once she was raped; and the crime was thought to be an offense against her husband or her father as much as it was to her." Treating rape as akin to murder, and thus warranting the death penalty, did "no kindness to women" she noted. See oral argument transcript at pages 23-24.

The "legal" executions of men for rape, and the illegal lynchings for rape that President Theodore Roosevelt decried, were carried out almost exclusively by men. Indeed, as we relate on this site, the killings, beatings, and other physical atrocities perpetrated against men falsely accused of rape are almost always carried out by men. This, of course, does not excuse the false accuser, who is almost always female, of her responsibility for the harm, but it does belie modern feminist assertions that men don't take rape with sufficient seriousness. If anything, men have time and time again overreacted to rape out of a deeply ingrained sense of chivalry.

Modern feminism, unfortunately, has turned overreaction to rape into an art form. Too many devotees of this strange cult do not want to punish actual rapists so much as to wage war on an entire gender by turning rape into a symbol of oppression of all women. Modern feminism has transformed rape into a "gotcha" crime by engorging its definition to include garden variety sexual conduct. Among other innovations, through feminism's advocacy, the requirements of force, resistance, and corroboration were eliminated. And who suffers because of this? Innocent men and boys who never committed rape, but who are easily charged because the garden variety sexual conduct they engaged in is turned into "rape" by virtue of a simple accusation.

Modern feminism, with its twisted and misandric take on rape, dominates the public discourse on the subject precisely because its punitive attitudes toward "rapists" are acceptable to chivalrous men, who haven't paid much attention to the details of feminism's war on rape. If they did, perhaps they would realize that modern feminism doesn't much care if innocent men and boys are snagged along with the guilty, and that even chivalrous men are at risk of being falsely accused.

Feminist rape activists have dominated the public discourse on rape for the past thirty years. More and more, rape, as defined by law or in college handbooks, has become a game of "gotcha!" with the intention of branding a male (usually a young man or boy) as a rapist for doing what most people would think is not rape. Common sense is sacrificed for robotic adherence to harsh, bright-line rules.

A boy who is engaging in consensual sex delays withdrawing for five to ten seconds (by the girl's own admission) and he's a rapist, convicted of a felony that will forever brand him as a the most serious criminal aside from murderer.

A college couple engages in sex after drinking: he, and he alone, is a rapist, because the one drink she had interfered with her ability to consent with 100 percent crystal clarity, and only the male is deemed to be responsible for sexual transgressions.

A young couple has had sex dozens of times without words being spoken: he's a rapist if he proceeds in the same manner they've repeatedly done it in the past if she decides to complain about it because she does not give enthusiastic verbal assent. Even though he didn't use force; even though she never said "don't"; and even though she's been perfectly happy with this kind of sex many, many previous times.

Gotcha! He's a rapist! He goes to prison for many years, or is expelled from college after a hearing in a decidedly anti-male kangaroo court. War has been declared on an entire gender, and persons of goodwill stand by and allow it. Why? One reason is because America has a long, painful tradition of overreacting to rape, so this form of overreaction seems par for the course.

The Martinsville Seven: seven lives were the price for one rape

On Friday morning, February 2, 1951, four young black men, none of them old enough to legally buy a drink, were put to death for the gang rape of a white housewife. The following Monday, three more black men were executed for the same rape. Today, the "Martinsville Seven" are largely forgotten, but their case was significant. The men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by all-white, all-male juries. Before the youngest was executed, he said: "God knows I didn't touch that woman, and I'll see ya'll on the other side." It was the biggest mass execution for rape in American history. The case was rife with racial tension as activists protested because only black men received the death penalty in Virgina for rape.

Indeed, between 1930 and the early 1970s, 405 black men were executed in Southern states for rape. While it is impossible to say what percentage of the convictions that led to these executions were based on actual guilt, it is fair to say that it was very difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for black men to get a fair trial for the alleged rape of a white woman in the old South.

While activists in the Martinsville Seven case protested the unfairness of executing only black men for rape, no one thought to protest the inherent and blatant injustice of taking the life of a male of any color for the rape of a female.

Rape historically punished more severely than the crime deserves

Throughout history, rape has often elicited a visceral reaction of outrage exceeding the actual harm inflicted by the crime. Whether by "legal" sentences (executions or excessively lengthy prison terms), or illegal lynchings and other vigilante "justice," men traditionally have often sought to punish rapists in a manner that is, by any rational measure, not proportional to the actual crime. Meting out excessive punishments for rape also means that the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they didn't commit.

Given its pervasive law and order attitudes, America has a long and shameful history of rape hysteria, predating the feminist revolution. President Theodore Roosevelt's December 3, 1906 State of the Union address spent an inordinate amount of time discussing a problem peculiar to black men: lynchings for allegedly committing rape that too often took the lives of innocent men. In that speech, Roosevelt declared without equivocation (and without explanation) that rape is a crime "even worse than murder" that deserves the death penalty.

The death penalty for rape finally outlawed

Until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977), states were permitted to punish the rape of adult women with the death penalty. It is interesting that outlawing the death penalty for the rape of women coincided with the height of the feminist revolution.

After Coker, the death penalty was still permitted for the rape of children. Six states still punished the rape of a child with the death penalty at the time it was ruled unconstitutional less than two years ago in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008). In that case, Justice Kennedy (no relation to the convicted man), writing for the majority, explained that the practice imposing the death penalty for child rape violated "evolving standards of decency," the yardstick the court uses to decide whether a punishment is cruel and unusual. overreacting

Importantly, in Kennedy, the court expressly noted that one of the bases for its holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape was the risk of false claims. The Court explained: "The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a 'special risk of wrongful execution' in some child rape cases. . . . . This undermines, at least to some degree, the meaningful contribution of the death penalty to legitimate goals of punishment. Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement."

A significant footnote to the Kennedy case, which underscores the Court's concern about false claims, is that the victim in that particular case made a false accusation before the real rapist was arrested. Specifically, after the victim was raped by her stepfather, the victim and her stepfather both claimed that the girl was raped by two neighborhood boys. "She told the psychologist that she had been playing in the garage when a boy came over and asked her about Girl Scout cookies she was selling; and that the boy 'pulled [her by the legs to] the backyard,'. . . where he placed his hand over her mouth, 'pulled down [her] shorts,' . . . ." This, of course, turned out to be a false accusation. What might have happened if that boy had been put to death for a rape he didn't commit?

Feminism capitalizes on America's overreaction to rape

During the oral argument of the Kennedy case, Justice Ginsburg noted that imposing the death penalty in rape cases stems from a tradition "when a woman was regarded as as good as dead once she was raped; and the crime was thought to be an offense against her husband or her father as much as it was to her." Treating rape as akin to murder, and thus warranting the death penalty, did "no kindness to women" she noted. See oral argument transcript at pages 23-24.

The "legal" executions of men for rape, and the illegal lynchings for rape that President Theodore Roosevelt decried, were carried out almost exclusively by men. Indeed, as we relate on this site, the killings, beatings, and other physical atrocities perpetrated against men falsely accused of rape are almost always carried out by men. This, of course, does not excuse the false accuser, who is almost always female, of her responsibility for the harm, but it does belie modern feminist assertions that men don't take rape with sufficient seriousness. If anything, men have time and time again overreacted to rape out of a deeply ingrained sense of chivalry.

Modern feminism, unfortunately, has turned overreaction to rape into an art form. Too many devotees of this strange cult do not want to punish actual rapists so much as to wage war on an entire gender by turning rape into a symbol of oppression of all women. Modern feminism has transformed rape into a "gotcha" crime by engorging its definition to include garden variety sexual conduct. Among other innovations, through feminism's advocacy, the requirements of force, resistance, and corroboration were eliminated. And who suffers because of this? Innocent men and boys who never committed rape, but who are easily charged because the garden variety sexual conduct they engaged in is turned into "rape" by virtue of a simple accusation.

Modern feminism, with its twisted and misandric take on rape, dominates the public discourse on the subject precisely because its punitive attitudes toward "rapists" are acceptable to chivalrous men, who haven't paid much attention to the details of feminism's war on rape. If they did, perhaps they would realize that modern feminism doesn't much care if innocent men and boys are snagged along with the guilty, and that even chivalrous men are at risk of being falsely accused.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Notice that it was her friend who called police. It does make one wonder if the teenager had sex with someone her friends and family wouldn't approve of, so when they found out, she cried rape. I guess until more information comes out, we are left to guess.

PORTSMOUTH — Detectives investigating a report of an attempted rape in the High-Hanover parking garage say the allegations from the teenager appear to be false.

The report occurred on Sunday night, April 11.

According to the city's public police log, a friend of the alleged victim called police at 11:28 a.m. Monday morning to report that the victim was "possibly sexually assaulted at the parking garage sometime last night."

Allegations from the reporting party involve the teenager being dragged into a van by two men who then tried to sexually assault her before she somehow escaped and fled the scene.

Police Capt. Corey MacDonald said detectives spent many hours investigating the case since it was reported. Police now believe the report was false.

"Based on hours of investigation, we don't believe a sexual assault or any attempted sexual assault occurred," said MacDonald. "We don't believe a sex assault occurred in the parking garage, or anywhere else."

Notice that it was her friend who called police. It does make one wonder if the teenager had sex with someone her friends and family wouldn't approve of, so when they found out, she cried rape. I guess until more information comes out, we are left to guess.

PORTSMOUTH — Detectives investigating a report of an attempted rape in the High-Hanover parking garage say the allegations from the teenager appear to be false.

The report occurred on Sunday night, April 11.

According to the city's public police log, a friend of the alleged victim called police at 11:28 a.m. Monday morning to report that the victim was "possibly sexually assaulted at the parking garage sometime last night."

Allegations from the reporting party involve the teenager being dragged into a van by two men who then tried to sexually assault her before she somehow escaped and fled the scene.

Police Capt. Corey MacDonald said detectives spent many hours investigating the case since it was reported. Police now believe the report was false.

"Based on hours of investigation, we don't believe a sexual assault or any attempted sexual assault occurred," said MacDonald. "We don't believe a sex assault occurred in the parking garage, or anywhere else."

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Below is a news story that illustrates what we frequently say on this site: innocent men falsely accused of rape are treated as collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. Here, police SWAT teams stormed the home of two young men, who were arrested on the say so of two young women. The victims of the false claim were later released when one of the false accusers recanted. So storm and arrest first, ask questions later. The most disturbing part? They'd do it all over again. According to the prosecutor: "Investigators took this seriously from the moment it was called in," he said. "We take all rape allegations seriously, it just turned out that this one wasn't true." A hell of a lot of them aren't true, sir, for your information. You really need to rethink this awful policy about storming the homes of the innocent, sir. Go watch the short news video here.

The print news story follows:

Mother Apologizes for Daughter in Fort Smith False Rape Accusation

The mother of a Fort Smith woman that claimed she was raped over the weekend now says she knows her daughter lied to her.

19-year-old Heather Erin Smith and her roommate, 21-year-old Jeni Lea Melton, were arrested Saturday after police say they claimed Smith had been raped. Two men, 23-year-old Thomas McDaniel and 30-year-old Steven David, were arrested after SWAT teams stormed their home on South 24th Street but were later released when police say Smith recanted her accusation.

Smith's mother, Ericka Church, told 5NEWS on Monday that at first she had completely believed her daughter's story. She even began posting messages on the Facebook page of the man Smith accused, and called him to ask why he had hurt her daughter.

"I went onto Facebook and I left messages all over his Facebook (page), and two people that he knows," she said. "I want to apologize for saying those things, to his friends and for calling him, I shouldn't have done that, I reacted out of anger."

Police say Church now faces charges of harassing communications, and Deputy Prosecutor Joey Self says her daughter may face additional charges as well.

"That's because the false police report led to a SWAT team being called out, it led to an invasion of a home and two men being arrested," said Self.

Self said that police worked diligently to investigate the rape allegations, which turned out to be false. When asked if this case may discourage actual rape victims from coming forward for fear they wouldn't be believed, he disagreed.

"Investigators took this seriously from the moment it was called in," he said. "We take all rape allegations seriously, it just turned out that this one wasn't true."

Smith and Melton have currently bonded out of jail, and could face formal charges later this week.

Below is a news story that illustrates what we frequently say on this site: innocent men falsely accused of rape are treated as collateral damage in the "more important" war on rape. Here, police SWAT teams stormed the home of two young men, who were arrested on the say so of two young women. The victims of the false claim were later released when one of the false accusers recanted. So storm and arrest first, ask questions later. The most disturbing part? They'd do it all over again. According to the prosecutor: "Investigators took this seriously from the moment it was called in," he said. "We take all rape allegations seriously, it just turned out that this one wasn't true." A hell of a lot of them aren't true, sir, for your information. You really need to rethink this awful policy about storming the homes of the innocent, sir. Go watch the short news video here.

The print news story follows:

Mother Apologizes for Daughter in Fort Smith False Rape Accusation

The mother of a Fort Smith woman that claimed she was raped over the weekend now says she knows her daughter lied to her.

19-year-old Heather Erin Smith and her roommate, 21-year-old Jeni Lea Melton, were arrested Saturday after police say they claimed Smith had been raped. Two men, 23-year-old Thomas McDaniel and 30-year-old Steven David, were arrested after SWAT teams stormed their home on South 24th Street but were later released when police say Smith recanted her accusation.

Smith's mother, Ericka Church, told 5NEWS on Monday that at first she had completely believed her daughter's story. She even began posting messages on the Facebook page of the man Smith accused, and called him to ask why he had hurt her daughter.

"I went onto Facebook and I left messages all over his Facebook (page), and two people that he knows," she said. "I want to apologize for saying those things, to his friends and for calling him, I shouldn't have done that, I reacted out of anger."

Police say Church now faces charges of harassing communications, and Deputy Prosecutor Joey Self says her daughter may face additional charges as well.

"That's because the false police report led to a SWAT team being called out, it led to an invasion of a home and two men being arrested," said Self.

Self said that police worked diligently to investigate the rape allegations, which turned out to be false. When asked if this case may discourage actual rape victims from coming forward for fear they wouldn't be believed, he disagreed.

"Investigators took this seriously from the moment it was called in," he said. "We take all rape allegations seriously, it just turned out that this one wasn't true."

Smith and Melton have currently bonded out of jail, and could face formal charges later this week.